At no time has the debt improved. At no time has deficit spending improved. We are still in debt and we are still spending more than we take in, but I guess that would depend on your definition of improvement.

At no time has the debt improved. At no time has the deficit improved. We are still in debt and we are still spending more than we take in, but I guess that would depend on your definition of improvement.

The word used was "projections."

Here's the final wrap-up: The more you cut, the weaker the economy will get.

If you cut simply out of ideological dogma, without watching the evidence, then you're a fool, and a dangerous one at that.

On a somewhat related topic (I didn't feel like starting a new thread), a recent Brookings study claims that the modern GOP is a major contributor to the increase in governmental failure.

Quote:

Republicans exploited the Democratic cowardice by doing everything in their power to undermine performance. They stonewalled needed policy changes, and made implementation of new programs as difficult as possible; they cut budgets, staffs, and collateral capacity to a minimum, proving the adage that the logical extension of doing more with less is doing everything with nothing; they used the presidential appointments process to decapitate key agencies, and appointed more than their share of unqualified executives; and they muddied mission, tolerated unethical conduct, and gamed the performance measure process to guarantee failing scores for as many government policies as possible.

Well, those good ole boys always said that their goal was to destroy the presidency of the first black man to occupy the office in our history. It seems they really didn't care if the country, or its people, got in the way.

I'm the one that needs to do this? Look, Obama sucks. But, instead of using all of your energy being outraged about this you should be far more outraged that one of our political parties is intentionally causing our government, and therefore our country, to fail. It's pretty much their policy. And that doesn't doesn't seem to concern you. Yet, I'm the one who needs to get his head "out of the sand". Good grief.

I'm the one that needs to do this? Look, Obama sucks. But, instead of using all of your energy being outraged about this you should be far more outraged that one of our political parties is intentionally causing our government, and therefore our country, to fail. It's pretty much their policy. And that doesn't doesn't seem to concern you. Yet, I'm the one who needs to get his head "out of the sand". Good grief.

Our government is a failure. That is a fact.

But blaming one side or the other is fools gold. Because our government is really just on a crash course with destiny. Any government presiding over 310 million souls while trying to sustain an intimate relationship in each one's day to day life is going to end where this government is (or is headed) Corrupt. Unaccountable.

Our federal government is far too powerful. And whether it's Democrats, Republicans, or Whigs passing down dictionary-length legislation from on high, it will only get worse. Unless and until we pull some of that power and accountability back and return it to the states and localities where it belongs.

Well there's the problem. It's not going to happen any time soon. We're stuck with what we have. And having a party whose policy is to undermine an already week and flawed government certainly doesn't help matters.

Well there's the problem. It's not going to happen any time soon. We're stuck with what we have. And having a party whose policy is to undermine an already week and flawed government certainly doesn't help matters.

Quick question. When does the guy that is the actual chief executive over all of our bureaucracy's failures become accountable for anything?

I mean I know the "VA Stuffed Veterans in a box for performance bonus cash because Republicans said mean things" argument sells well on the Daily Dish. But it's not worth a pot of piss in the real world.

When does the guy that is the actual chief executive over all of our bureaucracy's failures become accountable for anything?

Who said he's not "accountable for anything"? I just see a lot of ranting and raving about how awful Obama is, but very little concern about a political party that is intentionally undermining the POTUS and the government for political gain. That's like a football team having a bad QB, the offensive line intentionally not blocking for him, and the fans putting all of the blame on the QB. Not a perfect analogy, but may aid your understanding.

Who said he's not "accountable for anything"? I just see a lot of ranting and raving about how awful Obama is, but very little concern about a political party that is intentionally undermining the POTUS and the government for political gain. That's like a football team having a bad QB, the offensive line intentionally not blocking for him, and the fans putting all of the blame on the QB. Not a perfect analogy, but may aid your understanding.

I get what you're saying, but your analogy is missing the key ingredient.

The two sides have real ideological opposition. "You won't help me do what you think is the wrong thing to do" is beyond excuse-making. It defies reason.

And since at least 2012, Obama's made it pretty plain that his main role for the Republican Party is scapegoat. Even when they raise an issue he eventually has to concede on anyway, he'll let them go through a shutdown and everything, just so he can score a couple blame points. Then when he "wins" politically he turns around and unilaterally does what Republicans were trying to get out of the shutdown. (The employer mandate delay)

This idea that he's some poor hapless victim of his (really powerless) opposition is rich beyond measure. He feeds and utilizes the very conflict you say he's a victim of.

you wouldn't know 'austerity' if it bit you in the arse. spending is still up 15% since BO took office and 75% higher than a decade ago. 'austerity' today is nothing more than a foolish redefinition of what it TRULY is in order for lefties to bolster their economically illiterate argument.

So nobody remembers the threat of government shutdown and sequestration, which is still operating. Ah, the Right and it's endless struggle against history.

Here's what I'd do if I was in charge:

First, major tax reform. Get rid of sales tax and switch to VAT (idea originally proposed by Fedaykin ). I'd also reinstate estate (with limits) and capital gains taxes at a clean rate with no loopholes. Capital gains would be taxed at a higher rate than labor. Labor spends its money, capital doesn't. I would do away with all tax and trade laws that reward those who take jobs offshore, and instead, design the system to reward those who keep jobs here. Any loopholes or exceptions to the tax laws would be structured around benefiting those who invest in America, while making those who choose to move offshore pay more. I would also do away with idiotic trade laws that lead to unintended consequences, like waves of illegal immigrants coming over our borders.

I'd also reinstall Glass/Steagle, or something very like it, and get government control over the banksters and markets. The markets are not casinos. And the bankers need to return to sound, conservative business practices. No more flash boys, derivatives, or high frequency computer churning of equities. Let bankers go back to banking and investment companies back to investing.

Then, I would engage in major stimulus to get the country back to work in all areas of infrastructure, etc. I would put in legislation that dictates that once the economy is moving again and the budget is filling up, targeted pay down of the debt commences. The legislature would not have options about this. The goal would be to get economically disentangled from China and stop paying these ridiculous interest payments. A strong economy can pay down its debts, a weak one can't.

To reduce social spending I would, as Patrick Moynihan put it, simply eliminate the age requirement for Medicare and do away with Medicaid. Costs would be pegged to economic growth through allotting fee per patient parameters. Doctors could no longer be able to simply order a battery of every test they can dream up and they would no longer be rewarded for unnecessary treatment and services. I would strengthen the fraud investigation capabilities of government in these areas as well.

Of course, taxes would be raised in the FICA column (for everybody, regardless of income!) to pay for this, but it would be much less than people pay for health insurance now and would take employers completely out of the health care loop, pretty much making Burwell v. Hobby Lobby meaningless. The flood of money into the economy from the savings people get by canceling their health insurance would provide a major boost to the economy. Also, doctors and medical professionals stop jumping through the insurance industry hoops, also lowering costs.

Also, I would eliminate the cap for Social Security, close the majority of overseas military bases, figure out a way to provide free college tuition for those who deserve it, etc. etc.

So. There ya go.

Oh, and also write an amendment to the Constitution that plainly states that people are people and corporations are not people and don't deserve the rights of people, as if that needs to be written into law for some of the idiots among us.

At no time has the debt improved. At no time has deficit spending improved. We are still in debt and we are still spending more than we take in, but I guess that would depend on your definition of improvement.

Deficits are not improvements. We are in worse shape year after year on deficits. "Improvement" could only happen with a budget surplus. Then maybe it would be "completely fixed" with a few decades of surpluses to wipe out all the debt created by yearly deficits since 1969 except for the years 1998-2001.

Deficits are not improvements. We are in worse shape year after year on deficits. "Improvement" could only happen with a budget surplus. Then maybe it would be "completely fixed" with a few decades of surpluses to wipe out all the debt created by yearly deficits since 1969 except for the years 1998-2001.

That's just asinine. You're trying to claim that a 500bn yearly deficit is not an improvement over a 1,500bn yearly deficit (or w/e the hell the actual numbers are). It doesn't stop digging a hole, but it does reduce the rate of the digging. The deficit has been reduced, and the debt is growing slower. And it's certainly not "completely fixed". By any non insane definition, that's improvement (though like I said, certainly not "fixed").